Scott David Daniels wrote:
>I would say that writing computer programs without an understanding of
>computer science is certainly possible (and I've worked with lots of
>people who do so), but to write well, and to write are not the same
>skill at all.
>Let me sign on to your point of view. I am writing for other human beings.
But which other human beings?
A little ditty I had written here was judged harshly (and incorrectly, I
believe), because it spoke in a vocabulary of finance - to programmers.
Can someone whose first identity is as a programmer judge the writing of
someone whose is not.
Back to where I started to get testy:
properties and decorators
I honestly believe that if I had seen them in my first Python Triangle
class I would have judged myself to be looking at a language that might
be swell - for somebody else. But a little too magical,
self-referential and self-involved - for my own taste. And would have
moved on.
Which might have saved the Python community from the annoyances of one
annoying guy.
But I can imagine someone with my sensibilities - just a lot less
annoying - having moved on, and think that would have been a shame.
Is that really how we do a Triangle in Python today?
Can we accept the less sophisticated appraoches on equal footing?
Art